Selection of recent posts, as far as I can understand them, deals with perception of evil with Tolkien. Is it Manichaean, or Boethian, is the main question, it seems.
(as a side note - hope (in the sense of Estel - Faith) is clearly expression of Boethian view - the belief that whatever Creator does is for the good of his creatures, even when creatures themselves consider things done to them as undesirable(=evil))
First, it would be appropriate to consider the concept of 'shadow'. What is a shadow?
My Merriam-Webster has a load of things to say about it, but I wll draw on enries I find relevant:
1: partial darkness or obscurity within a part of space from which rays from a source of light are cut off by an interposed opaque body
2 : a reflected image
4 a : an imperfect and faint representation b : an imitation of something
All three definitions apply [to Sauron, and his Ring in particular) and both are expressions of Boethian view of Evil, which is absence of Good, and is flatly stated within Tolkien's works as unable to create, only to mock (that is, to reflect, or to imitate imperfectly)
but there is, as well, such an entry in the dictionary for the word 'shadow' as:
10 a : an inseparable companion or follower
Which moves us on to Manichaean view - as Good and Evil interbalanced forces, with equal opportunities.
And now I'm forced to review the poem Sam recites in chapter 11:
Gil-galad was an Elven-king.
Of him the harpers sadly sing:
the last whose realm was fair and free
between the Mountains and the Sea.
His sword was long, his lance was keen,
his shining helm afar was seen;
the countless stars of heaven's field
were mirrored in his silver shield.
But long ago he rode away,
and where he dwelleth none can say;
for into darkness fell his star
in Mordor
where the shadows are.
So, shadows, be them absence or not, can
be, that is, have an existence. They
are in Mordor, at least.
Which, as far as I can see, is Tolkien's effort to combine, conciliate those both views. For, indeed, if LoTR were totally Boethian, than there would be no need for Frodo to go anywhere at all - there would be nothing to confront, as Evil would be nothing - mere absence and would eliminate itself
Now, the Ring is somehow an union of those two concepts of Evil. As indicated by Squatter above, it draws on bearer's inner weakness (Boethian), is a kind of booster for what lack of Goodness it finds inside. That is why it is often described as temptation - Frodo is
tempted to put on the Ring, and has a fight with
himself. But, it is mentioned several times, the Ring has the will of its own - that is, it is outside
force as well (Manichaean). There are moments, contrary to mentioned when there is no temptation for Frodo (at the stairs to Cirith Ungol, per instance) - when there is no inner response, and his hand is
moved to take the Ring by sheer outside force
So it seems, that one can not take one or other side and define it clearly as falling into one category. Or, rather, Tolkien is
mainly Boethian, but with shadows (in a sense 11 : a small degree or portion : TRACE) of Manichaeanism to him.
PS
Probably it would be of interest to consider, perhaps, the followng thread dealing with the subject (but mainly around Sammath Naur, so maybe it is a bit before its time, but nevertheless):
Frodo or the Ring?
PPS
1. Yes, I do miss Mithadan posting in The Books
2. Views expressed by yours truly back there are somehow modified and changed by now.